mmex_transactions_splits

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries full burden disclosure. It does not state that the operation is read-only, whether splits are returned in any order, what happens when a transaction has no splits, or any error conditions. This is insufficient for an unannotated tool.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is concise with a clear opening line. The Args section is repetitive but structured. It is not overly verbose, though it could be shortened by omitting the explicit parameter list that mostly mirrors the schema.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the existence of an output schema (not shown), the description does not need to explain return values. However, it lacks details on how splits are ordered, potential errors, or prerequisites beyond the required transaction_id. This is adequate but not comprehensive.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It adds marginal value: for db_path and db_key, it mentions environment variable fallbacks (MMEX_DB_PATH, MMEX_DB_KEY). However, for transaction_id, it merely restates 'The transaction ID.' which adds no new insight beyond the schema.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states 'Get all splits for a transaction.' This is a specific verb+resource combination ('get splits') that is distinct from sibling tools like add_split, delete_split, update_split, which involve modification rather than retrieval.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., add_split, delete_split). There is no mention of prerequisites or scenarios where splits retrieval is appropriate, leaving the agent to infer usage from context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.